Recreational Cyclocross and GravelbikingThis has to be the most physically intense sport ever invented. It's high speed bicycle racing on a short off road course or riding the off pavement rides on gravel like :The Dirty Kanza". We also have a dedicated Racing forum for the Cyclocross Hard Core Racers.

Unfourtanetly, I'm a noob in specs, but I've seen some reviews about it . A lot of people complaining about the specs, altough it seems a very good bike. I can get it for realitvely cheap on a sale and use it for commuting, but mainly I want to use it for loaded tours, maybe go for a month long tour. I don't know how good is this bike for that purpose. Yes there are a lot of trekking bikes and touring bikes, but in hungary the roads are very bad, a traditional touring bike would fail because there are not so many bike routes , you have to go through gravel paths, grass fields etc. That's why I think a cyclocross bike should be the best.

I was going to say there's nothing wrong with the CrossRip. It has entry-level Shimano components, but it would be OK for commuting.

I don't think I'd want to trust those components for a month long tour though. It would probably be fine, but when you're going to be riding long distances from your nearest bike shop reliability is a top priority. That's why touring bikes tend to have bar end shifters. They're just more reliable and even if the indexing breaks you can use them in friction mode.

Also, I'm obviously not familiar with your routes, but I suspect that a touring bike would be able to handle the bad roads, gravel paths, grass fields, etc. The difference between touring bikes and cyclocross bikes isn't that cyclocross bikes are tougher. If anything, the opposite is true. Cyclocross bikes are typically made for racing and so they're lighter and designed to be more nimble. Touring bikes prioritize stability and durability. The CrossRip is actually something in between. It's not made for CX racing, but it's also not a touring bike.

I would recommend steel for a touring bike as it is less prone to damage than carbon and aluminum and easier to work with if you do get in a bad enough wreck. Many people agree that steel offers a more comfortable ride too. On top of that you should consider the bike's geometry. The Crossrip has a fairly long top tube so you'll be pretty stretched out on most frame sizes. Its a great bike but when I was looking for a bike for the same purposes I decided on the Surly Crosscheck.

It still has more aggressive geometry than a traditional touring bike but it has all the hardware nescessary to mount racks and fenders, fits 2.0"/50mm tires (47mm with fenders), is made of steel, and has bar end shifters which also means that you can more easily convert it to a tripple which is a good idea for the kind of riding you're talking about.

". . . a traditional touring bike would fail. . ." isn't true at all but I don't know how you define traditional touring bike. I'm using a Surly LHT with 32H HED Belgium Plus rims and Challenge Chicane tires as my go-anywhere dirt/gravel bike. I've ridden it on gravel roads and on rooty single track. It was also my fully-loaded touring bike a few years ago and then an all-around commuter. It's admittedly heavy but its still a sweet ride and hasn't failed.

I only took a test ride on the crossrip elite and it seemed like a nice bike. The top tube is long but it comes with a short stem. As long as you don't need an even shorter stem it should be ok. I'm not well versed in steel vs aluminum for touring but you can put fenders and rack on it. I think it would be on my short list if I were looking to buy a new bike.

The Crossrips are designed and marketed as cyclocross-style commuter bikes (i.e. light & quick, while able to handle variable road conditions). They're honestly a lot like Trek's FX (fitness hybrid) line, but with drop handlebars and canti or disc brakes. If you're looking for a bike to do a month-long tour, I'd go with a touring-specific bike like a Trek 520. As for the terrain you're riding on, a lot of a bike's ability to tackle the rough stuff will have more to do with what kind of tires you put on it.

I bought one and I love it. It's true that there are similar (or "better") bikes in the same price range, but I assessed my needs and the Crossrip met them. As always it's easy to get swept up by internet forum discussions and criticisms of this or that about any particular bike. Mine is simply a blast to ride, and it will replace two other bikes I own (Trek Mamba and Trek 1500). I'm simplifying for space and other reasons. In any case, I've been riding the heck out of it - roads, trails, urban, wherever I feel like riding. It's a perfectly competent ride (for me) and I have absolutely no complaints (yet) about component quality or weight. To use a cliche, it's a great bike (for me) to "just ride" and that's exactly what I wanted.

By the way, I bought the Claris-equipped Crossrip Comp and I have to say that so far I'm pleasantly surprised by the quality of Claris. So far .

but mainly I want to use it for loaded tours, maybe go for a month long tour. I don't know how good is this bike for that purpose.

Probably not your best choice for fully-loaded touring. When I think of fully-loaded touring, I think of front and rear panniers, possibly a handlebar bag and maybe a trunk bag too. In this configuration, the Crossrip is not a good choice.

The Crossrip's front end geometry is desgined for cyclocross racing, unloaded. Putting a load on the front end of a bike where the geometry is not designed to compensate for the weight means that it will be a real handful. The weight will want to steer the bike. It will tend to wander off-line, and all steering inputs will be exaggerated--amplified by the weight. Worse, when turning, the bike will want to flop into the turn, and will need to be muscled back up out of it.

Bikes designed to carry loads in the front--audax/brevet/randonner bikes, porteur bikes, and touring bikes all come to mind--share one common trait. Their front end geometry is decidedly low-trail.

Quote:

Trail: The distance between the front wheel contact point with the road and the imaginary point where the steering axis meets the road.

When we are asked to build frames for either loaded touring or Randonneur riding, we need to use lower trail numbers to keep handling consistent even when extra weight is loaded onto the bike in front of the steering axis. The degree to which we change the trail numbers depends on both the additional weight being carried and the handling requirements of the rider.--Trail and its effects

In short, a low-trail front end uses the bike's geometry itself to maintain straight-line tracking, to keep from flopping into turns, and to straighten up again after them. Rough roads don't throw it around either. It continues to track steadily.

Unloaded, my audax bike actually pops up like a cork when completing a turn. It takes a bit more to nudge it off-line to begin the turn, and I have to hold it down through the turn. On the cobbles, it tracks straight and true, where my other bikes--including a cyclocross bike--are pushed and bounced left and right by the cobbles.

My CX bike is a Trek Portland, forerunner of the Crossrip. The front end figures between the two bikes are very, very similar. My Portland is an excellent grocery-getter and light tourer. The more I load up the back, the happier and straighter the bike tracks. A typical grocery load is about 20 to 30 kg. The bike behaves as if there's nothing there at all. But it absolutely detests weight on the front.

So as a light tourer, the Crossrip wouldn't be a bad choice. For fully-loaded touring, you'd better work on your upper-body strength first. You'll need it.

Traditional French audax/randonneuring bikes are low trail designs partly for historical reasons and partly because weight on these bikes is traditionally carried fairly high up for easy access on the go. The higher up the weight is carried on the front of a bike, the more severe its effect on steering. This is the reason for mid-fork rack eyelets on modern touring bikes: they allow loads to be carried very low, just a little higher than the front axle. I can tell you from my own experience that 15-20 lbs carried this low on a loaded touring bike has a very neutral effect on steering, the bike is not hard to control at all, and in fact feels very stable and easy to ride.

A cyclocross bike is definitely not ideal as a loaded touring bike, but it's not because the front end geometry is inappropriate. Touring bikes are mid and mid-high trail designs. Yet, they work fine. The issues with a cyclocross bike would be greater difficulty in mounting a low front rack and the short chainstays. A touring bike is also likely to be more rigid, which helps the bike continue to track and handle predictably when carrying a full load.

EDIT: by the way, I don't consider the straighter tracking of a mid-trail bike when the rear rack is loaded up to be a desirable characteristic at all. Going on a loaded tour is going to require negotiating corners with quite a lot of weight on the bike. Going around a corner at any degree of speed with all the weight on the back becomes a frightening experience, as the bicycle resists turning and wants to plow on in a straight line. Which is why we load up roughly equal amounts of weight on the front and back of a touring bike, it keeps the handling neutral and the bike responds well to steering inputs. Touring has very different requirements than audax or brevet riding, which is precisely why bikes built for it have very different geometry.

The Crossrips are designed and marketed as cyclocross-style commuter bikes (i.e. light & quick, while able to handle variable road conditions). They're honestly a lot like Trek's FX (fitness hybrid) line, but with drop handlebars and canti or disc brakes. If you're looking for a bike to do a month-long tour, I'd go with a touring-specific bike like a Trek 520. As for the terrain you're riding on, a lot of a bike's ability to tackle the rough stuff will have more to do with what kind of tires you put on it.

This post stole my thunder. A 520 is pretty close in price and is designed with touring in mind. Steel frame and enough space to bigger on the tires if needed for the rough stuff. I guess the only drawback might be the disc brakes, but then again, those discs would possibly be a problem vs. traditional brakes on tour.